Stand down chaps, Libya announce ceasefire.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC news:
BBC News - Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen?
But just in case it disappears:
BBC News - Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen?
But just in case it disappears:
Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen?By Andrew North
BBC News, Washington
Gulf Co-operation Council forces used tanks to drive protesters from a central square in Manama, Bahrain Continue reading the main story
Libya RevoltAs it happened: Friday
Uprising in maps
Monitoring ceasefire
UK jets readied
What's the difference between Libya and Yemen or Bahrain?
All three states have been using violence to crush pro-democracy protests.
But only against Libya are the US and its Western allies planning a military response.
Yemen and Bahrain's crackdowns have so far been met only with words, not action.
On one level the answer is obvious.
Bahrain and Yemen are US allies - especially Bahrain with its large US naval base. Libya is not.
The US response to Bahrain is further complicated by neighbouring Saudi Arabia, Washington's number one Arab ally.
Sunni 'red line'
The Saudis were not happy to see Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak go.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
Having watched Tunisia and Egypt go, other Arab leaders are following Libya's lead in drawing a line in the sand and opting for force rather than dialogue”
End Quote Losing the Sunni monarchy in its neighbour is a red line - that's why it took the unprecedented step of sending 1,000 troops over the border into Bahrain, after which the crackdown began.
But what happened to the "universal values" US President Barack Obama cited when he eventually backed protesters in Egypt?
His decision to abandon an old US ally there - Mr Mubarak - gave some the impression he was preparing to apply those values universally and to break with the past US policy of cosying up to other Middle Eastern regimes.
Critics say it was a dangerous impression, raising protesters' expectations as well as Gulf monarchs' blood pressure.
'Interests come first'
"The US always preaches values that it cannot live up to," says Marina Ottaway, director of the Middle East programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
"In the end, its interests come first."
As the uprisings have spread out of North Africa to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, those interests have come to the fore again, with Washington taking a more cautious, country-by-country approach.
For the US, stability in those oil-rich states now appears to trump the hopes of their protest movements.
Yemen is crucial to Washington for its battle with al-Qaeda - which makes the Obama administration cautious in how hard it pushes Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
"The US is very afraid that if Saleh goes, Yemen will fall apart," Ms Ottaway says.
Mr Obama condemned the latest violence in Yemen, in which at least 30 protesters were killed.
Reluctance
But he would only call for "those responsible... to be held accountable", without directly laying it at Mr Saleh's door.
Washington has had a low-key response as well to violence used by Iraqi security forces against protesters there.
Even with Libya, the new caution is on display. The administration was reluctant for some time to back a no-fly zone, fearing it could lead to a third US war on a Muslim country, after Afghanistan and Iraq.
It only did so only after it got support from Arab states and European allies.
And it is still not clear how much the US will contribute militarily to the UN-backed no-fly zone or what will happen if Col Gaddafi succeeds in hanging onto power.
With recent history in mind and the tide of protest still sweeping through the region, caution arguably looks a sensible policy from a US point of view.
But it also risks giving conservative Arab leaders the breathing space they need to stall the push for reform and hang on.
Having watched Tunisia and Egypt go, other Arab leaders are following Libya's lead in drawing a line in the sand and opting for force rather than dialogue.
It's not clear if Mr Obama can do anything about it.
BBC News, Washington
Gulf Co-operation Council forces used tanks to drive protesters from a central square in Manama, Bahrain Continue reading the main story
Libya RevoltAs it happened: Friday
Uprising in maps
Monitoring ceasefire
UK jets readied
What's the difference between Libya and Yemen or Bahrain?
All three states have been using violence to crush pro-democracy protests.
But only against Libya are the US and its Western allies planning a military response.
Yemen and Bahrain's crackdowns have so far been met only with words, not action.
On one level the answer is obvious.
Bahrain and Yemen are US allies - especially Bahrain with its large US naval base. Libya is not.
The US response to Bahrain is further complicated by neighbouring Saudi Arabia, Washington's number one Arab ally.
Sunni 'red line'
The Saudis were not happy to see Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak go.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
Having watched Tunisia and Egypt go, other Arab leaders are following Libya's lead in drawing a line in the sand and opting for force rather than dialogue”
End Quote Losing the Sunni monarchy in its neighbour is a red line - that's why it took the unprecedented step of sending 1,000 troops over the border into Bahrain, after which the crackdown began.
But what happened to the "universal values" US President Barack Obama cited when he eventually backed protesters in Egypt?
His decision to abandon an old US ally there - Mr Mubarak - gave some the impression he was preparing to apply those values universally and to break with the past US policy of cosying up to other Middle Eastern regimes.
Critics say it was a dangerous impression, raising protesters' expectations as well as Gulf monarchs' blood pressure.
'Interests come first'
"The US always preaches values that it cannot live up to," says Marina Ottaway, director of the Middle East programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
"In the end, its interests come first."
As the uprisings have spread out of North Africa to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, those interests have come to the fore again, with Washington taking a more cautious, country-by-country approach.
For the US, stability in those oil-rich states now appears to trump the hopes of their protest movements.
Yemen is crucial to Washington for its battle with al-Qaeda - which makes the Obama administration cautious in how hard it pushes Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
"The US is very afraid that if Saleh goes, Yemen will fall apart," Ms Ottaway says.
Mr Obama condemned the latest violence in Yemen, in which at least 30 protesters were killed.
Reluctance
But he would only call for "those responsible... to be held accountable", without directly laying it at Mr Saleh's door.
Washington has had a low-key response as well to violence used by Iraqi security forces against protesters there.
Even with Libya, the new caution is on display. The administration was reluctant for some time to back a no-fly zone, fearing it could lead to a third US war on a Muslim country, after Afghanistan and Iraq.
It only did so only after it got support from Arab states and European allies.
And it is still not clear how much the US will contribute militarily to the UN-backed no-fly zone or what will happen if Col Gaddafi succeeds in hanging onto power.
With recent history in mind and the tide of protest still sweeping through the region, caution arguably looks a sensible policy from a US point of view.
But it also risks giving conservative Arab leaders the breathing space they need to stall the push for reform and hang on.
Having watched Tunisia and Egypt go, other Arab leaders are following Libya's lead in drawing a line in the sand and opting for force rather than dialogue.
It's not clear if Mr Obama can do anything about it.
Sounds like Brixton.....
[QUOTE][/QUOTESeveral steps here..
1) The protests start, they cannot be controlled
2) The government send in the troops to sort the protests out
3) The protestors start to fight back, people are dying
4) The world asks them to stop, they refuse
5) The world looks to put troops on the ground to prevent it happening, they need the UN backing for this. Meanwhilst the fighting still goes on.
6) The UN backing is given, a ceasefire is made. UN troops move closer on hold.
7) The protests return, larger in size this time. The police try to hold things back.
8) Things cannot be contained by the police, armed force presence is needed to hold the country.
9) Fighting starts again.
10) UN move in.
1) The protests start, they cannot be controlled
2) The government send in the troops to sort the protests out
3) The protestors start to fight back, people are dying
4) The world asks them to stop, they refuse
5) The world looks to put troops on the ground to prevent it happening, they need the UN backing for this. Meanwhilst the fighting still goes on.
6) The UN backing is given, a ceasefire is made. UN troops move closer on hold.
7) The protests return, larger in size this time. The police try to hold things back.
8) Things cannot be contained by the police, armed force presence is needed to hold the country.
9) Fighting starts again.
10) UN move in.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SRENNAPS... Mr Andrew North of the BBC seems to be ignoring a giant problem with his "US hypocrisy" thesis.
The US and Egypt have been close friends and allies for a couple of decades now, with the US considering Mubarak and his government as "essential allies in the Middle East".
But Obama (and most of the rest of the US) urged Mubarak to resign, and provided moral and diplomatic support for the uprising.
This is a stark contrast to his portrayal of "the US is supporting regimes it is friendly to and opposing those it is not friendly to".
The US and Egypt have been close friends and allies for a couple of decades now, with the US considering Mubarak and his government as "essential allies in the Middle East".
But Obama (and most of the rest of the US) urged Mubarak to resign, and provided moral and diplomatic support for the uprising.
This is a stark contrast to his portrayal of "the US is supporting regimes it is friendly to and opposing those it is not friendly to".
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: US
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those b*tchin about Western nations responding to other areas such a Bahrain, Saudi etc. don't know what the hell they are talkin about!
Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain etc. are allies of the West and their conduct is, for most part, measured. Libya on the other hand has been a rogue nation since Madaffi took control. Behind the scenes they have financed/promoted all kinds of internal disputes throughout Africa pushing an openly anti-semetic and divisive agenda between Christians and Muslims. The evidence is scattered all over Africa where the Libyan regime has encouraged its neighbours to kick-out Israeli missions (which happened in Mali and elsewhere) and in his ill-conveived recommendation to split Nigeria in two! But, the examples run into their hundreds as anyone familiar with Africa would know.
Libya is one of the few countries in the world which still executes those of its citizens who oppose their government. Their intelligence service simply shoots people (locals who generally won't be missed or whose families have no recourse to international media or protection) in the head, normally at close range with pistols!
Besides Madaffi's vile internal management of Libya his involvement with other African states has caused (and seeks to create) divisions - especially between Christians and Muslims. He has financed hundreds of mosques all over the continent and regularly visits them giving speeches in which he denouces the bible as 'Western mythology which has no basis in fact' and that 'Christianity is the whiteman's ideology designed to try and control the rest of the world'.
And when Madaffi gets pissed he has a penchant for bombing aircraft. UTA 772, Pan Am 103 and several African airliners which the media is either too scared to report about or too lazy to research the evidence!
And now, when the pressure is on, he threatens to destroy civilian assets in the Med - again revealing him for the true son of a b*tch that he is!
Those talkin about our response to Saudi, Bahrain etc. should visit those places and then go live in Libya. As always, bullsh*t comments from idi*ts who have never been to the places they're writing about!
I've worked in Saudi, Yemen, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Nigeria, Chad and countless other African nations with the US government. Libya is probably the most dangerous (in terms of what they do behind the scenes) of the Middle Eastern/African countries I've visited.
My best wishes are with all the flyers who go down there - "Bomb the f*ck out of them boys!".
Have a nice day.
HM
Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain etc. are allies of the West and their conduct is, for most part, measured. Libya on the other hand has been a rogue nation since Madaffi took control. Behind the scenes they have financed/promoted all kinds of internal disputes throughout Africa pushing an openly anti-semetic and divisive agenda between Christians and Muslims. The evidence is scattered all over Africa where the Libyan regime has encouraged its neighbours to kick-out Israeli missions (which happened in Mali and elsewhere) and in his ill-conveived recommendation to split Nigeria in two! But, the examples run into their hundreds as anyone familiar with Africa would know.
Libya is one of the few countries in the world which still executes those of its citizens who oppose their government. Their intelligence service simply shoots people (locals who generally won't be missed or whose families have no recourse to international media or protection) in the head, normally at close range with pistols!
Besides Madaffi's vile internal management of Libya his involvement with other African states has caused (and seeks to create) divisions - especially between Christians and Muslims. He has financed hundreds of mosques all over the continent and regularly visits them giving speeches in which he denouces the bible as 'Western mythology which has no basis in fact' and that 'Christianity is the whiteman's ideology designed to try and control the rest of the world'.
And when Madaffi gets pissed he has a penchant for bombing aircraft. UTA 772, Pan Am 103 and several African airliners which the media is either too scared to report about or too lazy to research the evidence!
And now, when the pressure is on, he threatens to destroy civilian assets in the Med - again revealing him for the true son of a b*tch that he is!
Those talkin about our response to Saudi, Bahrain etc. should visit those places and then go live in Libya. As always, bullsh*t comments from idi*ts who have never been to the places they're writing about!
I've worked in Saudi, Yemen, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Nigeria, Chad and countless other African nations with the US government. Libya is probably the most dangerous (in terms of what they do behind the scenes) of the Middle Eastern/African countries I've visited.
My best wishes are with all the flyers who go down there - "Bomb the f*ck out of them boys!".
Have a nice day.
HM
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky News, First for Breaking News, Latest News and Video News from the UK and around the World
Hmm ceasefire, NFZ whats that falling from the sky ?
Hmm ceasefire, NFZ whats that falling from the sky ?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hell Man,
I probably did not make myself clear last night, my apologies. The point I was trying to make was that we should not being doing this to Libya in the name of democracy. That is sending out the wrong message, especially to those demonstrating in Bahrain and Saudi etc.
Gaddafi and his rogue state, as it is, needs to go and I am quite happy for us to bomb the cr@p out of him. We should also being doing this to all other rogue states around the world, whether they have oil or not. To pick and choose which countries we do and then do it in the name of democracy smacks of total hypocrisy to others around the world watching.
The message we should be putting across is that the “World” will no longer tolerate rogue states that threaten the stability of the planet or persecutes its own population. Do this and the World will deal with you.
Many countries that do not have democracy (as we know it) have lived in peace and harmony for many, many years. In my opinion Tunisia was a mistake and should not have happened in the way that it did. The people of Tunisia were nowhere near as oppressed as those in other countries. Sadly it happened and it has set off a chain of events leading to where we are today.
I have also spent a little bit of my life in the Middle East, in several counties some of which were very nice, but to be quite frank, a few buckets of instant sunshine, in certain areas, would have solved all our problems years ago.
GreenKnight121
I totally agree with you
I probably did not make myself clear last night, my apologies. The point I was trying to make was that we should not being doing this to Libya in the name of democracy. That is sending out the wrong message, especially to those demonstrating in Bahrain and Saudi etc.
Gaddafi and his rogue state, as it is, needs to go and I am quite happy for us to bomb the cr@p out of him. We should also being doing this to all other rogue states around the world, whether they have oil or not. To pick and choose which countries we do and then do it in the name of democracy smacks of total hypocrisy to others around the world watching.
The message we should be putting across is that the “World” will no longer tolerate rogue states that threaten the stability of the planet or persecutes its own population. Do this and the World will deal with you.
Many countries that do not have democracy (as we know it) have lived in peace and harmony for many, many years. In my opinion Tunisia was a mistake and should not have happened in the way that it did. The people of Tunisia were nowhere near as oppressed as those in other countries. Sadly it happened and it has set off a chain of events leading to where we are today.
I have also spent a little bit of my life in the Middle East, in several counties some of which were very nice, but to be quite frank, a few buckets of instant sunshine, in certain areas, would have solved all our problems years ago.
GreenKnight121
I totally agree with you
Last edited by SRENNAPS; 19th Mar 2011 at 08:38.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: US
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank God its begun!
A great day for ordinary Libyans and their children. Maybe they will have a real future once we're done.
Any criticisms .. go s*rew yourself and read the thread http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...l-gadaffi.html on the way out!
HM
A great day for ordinary Libyans and their children. Maybe they will have a real future once we're done.
Any criticisms .. go s*rew yourself and read the thread http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...l-gadaffi.html on the way out!
HM
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cranfield UK
Age: 70
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who claims the kill?
Wouldn't it be great if the crew that defected to Malta had gone back to help in the enforcing of the NFZ and taken out the offender?
I guess it could be from a US carrier? but why no statement yet? Perhaps it was the French and they want to announce it at the summit. 100:1 that it was Qatari? Pre emptive action may have some effect but we need a few facts here.
Edit 1 It couldn't be a coalition aircraft could it?
Edit 2 Sky's guest reckons it was a Mig 23
I guess it could be from a US carrier? but why no statement yet? Perhaps it was the French and they want to announce it at the summit. 100:1 that it was Qatari? Pre emptive action may have some effect but we need a few facts here.
Edit 1 It couldn't be a coalition aircraft could it?
Edit 2 Sky's guest reckons it was a Mig 23
Last edited by SkyCamMK; 19th Mar 2011 at 10:30.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC footage it looked like an F1 to me too but from the later Sky shot which shows a top profile it seems to be a Flogger. From the characteristics of the impact I'd say a MANPADS hit, although surprisingly little smoke plume. Only a single chute. Speculation I know but not bad footage.
Last edited by Geehovah; 19th Mar 2011 at 09:00.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not put it past the rebel Libyans to have an anti-Gadaffri pilot to take up a Mig from, say El Adem, fly it around Benghazi for a bit and then bang out with an explosive device in the aircraft initiated by the ejector seat.
Nice little excuse to get Western intervention.
Nice little excuse to get Western intervention.